Michaeneu said:
Clearly, you continue to try and rationalize when you’ve been exposed for the presumption of thinking yourself ABOVE the “universally” accepted definition for a circular fallacy. And now you admit to NOT having even bothered to look up what the idiom means. You have some temerity to pontificate about “universal” concepts. You have no shame or cannot even blush as the scriptures state. You are dang right I’m holding your feet to the flame by the technical definition because one can make a word or idiom mean anything they want if not, and that’s exactly what you do here and even concerning the Decalogue.
Again, a circular fallacy stands upon a single premise but my argument clearly does not fall under any such definition because it stands upon at least two other related but separate logical deductive arguments that support my premise. My original assertion was upon the change in the law and the criterion by which laws were cancelled did not include the fourth commandment because the scriptures DO NOT reveal it as a weak shadow that was imperfect or unprofitable. This in itself is not a circular fallacy because I developed evidence in the scriptures that point to Hebrews as the only place where we are given the HOW and CRITERION of the change. I supported the premise by exposing your attempt to use the CHARACTER of the law as the criterion as poor exegesis.
“holding my feet to the flame”. I see you still think you have me on trial or something. What this really is is a diversionary rabbit trail designed to get your non-logic off the hook and provide more opportunities to hurl insults at me. What I mean by “not looking it up” is that I see no difference between the definition you posted from Wiktionary and the logic you are using here. But you insisted anyway. To grant you the benefit of the doubt, I would have to reread it further, but I haven’t had the time or energy. And all you do is turn that into yet another ad-hominem attack, about me having no shame. You are the one describing yourself, because you are so full of your own self-righteousness, you will stop at nothing to try to win the argument by talking down the other side, repeating the same accusations of poor exegesis, after simply rejecting that which is given to you, misconstruing things, and justifying your horrible attitude with the notion that you are here to correct error and teach truth.
For the last time, you burst onto this board calling us antinomians for not honoring the Sabbath. THAT was your “original assertion”. I confronted that, and the subject naturally led into how the law changed.
Then, you eventually spun off this new thread on that subject, in order to try to
support your original assertion on that Sabbath. So
that is still your original assertion.
We would not even be here arguing "how the Law changed" if you weren't trying to prove the Sabbath! In every post you repeat that I have not given exegesis showing that the Sabbath was a weak shadow (even though I did, but you didn’t accept it). This ASSUMES that your original assertion is proven by default. In other words, you assert the Sabbath is perennial, demand exegesis to the contrary, dismiss all the answers/scriptures given, then claim the exegesis never was given, and
presume that your original assertion stands.
That IS supporting it on its own premise, and thus fits the definition of a circular argument that you gave. So you’re just playing mind games here, and I’m not falling for it. You put the flame to my feet, you find it right back under yours! Even if you are not satisfied with my exegesis, you don’t presume that your premise stands by default. Hypothetically, we could both be wrong, for all you know. GE believes that the entire Law passed, but the Sabbath is still in effect, through Christ, rather than the Law, and you can even work on it, since it is not based on the old law. That contradicts both of our positions, so even if mine was proven wrong, yours still could be, and I say again, his concept is much more theologically sound than yours. You still have to prove yours, and you do not prove it, but only throw up a bunch of proof texts that do not say what you’re teaching, and a whole bunch of other concepts, many of them foreign to scripture. It is all vain sophistry.
The issue of standing and placement of the fourth are separate but related arguments. You attempt to make the fact that they are related mean they are the same thing, tautology, to support your twisted lack of understanding concerning circular reasoning. OF COURSE they must be related otherwise they would not support the original premise, but that does not mean they are tautology or another way of stating the same or original premise. The definition of standing in reference to the covenant law is the rank or order of importance in the law as it is perceived from Yah’s perspective. Clearly, “standing” IS NOT tautology concerning HOW “the law changed”; one speaks about hierarchy in the law while the other speaks about change in the law. They are related to the issue of the law but not the same issue concerning the law. Clearly, your interpretation of a circular fallacy is twisted, shallow and inconclusive.
I don’t even know what you are talking about now. You seem to be so enamored with your own wisdom that you write just to see yourself talk. Meanwhile, all your lecturing about hierarchy in the law has proven nothing concerning how it changed, as I show again next.
As to sidestepping, it is clear that you continue to want to ignore or downplay many issues that support the perennial nature of the fourth commandment. Notice how you completely sidestep the fact that you ASSUME that ALL the precepts concerning “incest” are perennial and carried over to the New Covenant with little proof but ignore the logic of standing and that Yahshua upheld the standing of the fourth in the Olivet Discourse. You ASSUME the former with little proof and deny the logic and proof concerning the latter. Clearly your logic is shallow and inconclusive when you make ASSUMPTION the criterion for denial and then ASSUME facts yourself.
You pontificate on issues of logic, but sidestep the logic of standing in the placement of the fourth when you uphold that this act by Yah was superfluous, capricious and arbitrary because the forth did not have the same standing as the other nine; that is exactly what your unsound logic upholds. Logic dictates that Yah placed the greatest moral precepts in the logic order of their importance, which He did a Sinai.
You have yet to even provide one single scriptural clue of all of this. You deny circular reasoning, but you come with this whole assertion as if it were a clear given. You take isolated references to “greatest” and “least” that sometimes have nothing to do with this claim. The only thing you have to go one is Matt.22:38, speaking of the TWO commandments. The first is about God, and the second about man. Of course, God comes first.
But in actuality, the word used there is “GREAT” (megas),
not “great
est”! Then, Jesus goes on to say that the second commandment is LIKE unto it. In other words, if the first one is great, then
so is the second one! The lawyer did not ask for the two greatest, or the greatest and second greates, but for ONE. Jesus gives him those two. Of course, they themselves hang on the ONE: love. And
the whole law and the prophets hang on them! Nothing here about which carry on or would be cancelled.
Yet, you have raised this whole fuss as the ultimate proof, and it is just not there. You keep spewing out “
superfluous, capricious and arbitrary” (to gain a ‘psychological edge’, as you call it), all based on the presupposed notion of your concept of standing (hence, another circular fallacy). If everything that hangs on the greatest is perennial and not cancelled, then that includes the WHOLE law and the prophets! The “weak ceremonies” are NOT being excluded as
not apart of the Law, now!
Else, you have to admit that certain details UNDER those two CAN be cancelled, and the Ten as a “unit” are not even singled out here, so your whole issue of “standing” proving which are perennial falls flat. It was a total waste of time. We are back to square one, in proving the Sabbath is perennial.
Another scripture that I should have addressed more is Rom.8:3 which clearly says the "Law" (incl.10 commandments, ch.7:7) was WEAK. Its the
spirit that "condemns sin in the flesh", and "flesh" here in the context is talking not just about "indulging in sins" as we often take it; but rather is
PARALLELED to the "Law of sin and death" and the "oldness of the letter" (7:6). Of course, the Law itself was “good” (v.13,14), but because of
OUR spiritual condition, coud not solve our problem.
It is scriptures like these, scatted THROUGHOUT the NT that show us how and why the Law changed. You simply reject them and focus on ONE example to bolster your premise. But we have to take the scriptures as a whole.
